Ha ha, these are fun. I don't see this as selfie/narcism, but rather a somewhat natural consequence of a camera-using couple turning serendipity into a collaborative project. I go out shooting with camera groups all the time and we often joke about taking simultaneous photos of each other taking photos...

Ha ha, these are fun. I don't see this as selfie/narcism, but rather a somewhat natural consequence of a camera-using couple turning serendipity into a collaborative project. I go out shooting with camera groups all the time and we often joke about taking simultaneous photos of each other taking photos...

Click to expand...

The question that I ask is whether this is all that they do on their travels? Does every photo involve them just photographing each other with a different backdrop?

Not my cup of tea.
Taking a shot of a photographer plying his/her craft is like photographing anyone at work or play, it's documenting something real.
Shooting someone shooting you while you shoot them, shooting....and repeating this nonsense over and over...reminds me of sitting through a neighbor's endless slideshow from their vacation showing the family with pasted on smiles obscuring any possible background sites of interest. Not enough coffee to keep me awake through this snoozer.

I like this as a fun way of getting opposing views at each location & it looks like they were at Feathedale Wildlife Park in the west of Sydney (I was there recently) with the feeding of the kangaroos.

I must admit, I like the series. The pics are not that great in itself, but showing what is behind the camera is fun. Yes, it is 'Art', conceptual art, and no, that does not make it Wagner. Art is not always big, grand and majestic, it can be just a little fun too.

I have seen the same idea used in the seventies with a rear vied mirror in each frame, but that gave just a glimpse of the 'other side'. Full panoramas doe the same of course, but often in a more boring way.

Looking at these pics I feel most are a bit of a missed opportunity, but some do quite well in showing the contrast between two directions. The second duo (with the coloured chairs) is nice for example; it take a bit to realise both are part of the same scene due to the difference (it would be better if there was some kind of visual link, other than knowing, that connected the two pics). I feel quite a few others miss this even more, or are just the same situation without 'back and front' contrast at all. To me this seems to be a bit of the problem with the way pictures are used or rather dumped on the web today; no real selection is made.

I must admit, I like the series. The pics are not that great in itself, but showing what is behind the camera is fun. Yes, it is 'Art', conceptual art, and no, that does not make it Wagner. Art is not always big, grand and majestic, it can be just a little fun too.

I have seen the same idea used in the seventies with a rear vied mirror in each frame, but that gave just a glimpse of the 'other side'. Full panoramas doe the same of course, but often in a more boring way.

Looking at these pics I feel most are a bit of a missed opportunity, but some do quite well in showing the contrast between two directions. The second duo (with the coloured chairs) is nice for example; it take a bit to realise both are part of the same scene due to the difference (it would be better if there was some kind of visual link, other than knowing, that connected the two pics). I feel quite a few others miss this even more, or are just the same situation without 'back and front' contrast at all. To me this seems to be a bit of the problem with the way pictures are used or rather dumped on the web today; no real selection is made.

Click to expand...

The missing link between the photos can add some mystery to the showing of the photos which is also part of its appeal or interest.

To me this seems to be a bit of the problem with the way pictures are used or rather dumped on the web today; no real selection is made.

Click to expand...

Unfortunately, that's what a lot of photos are about nowadays, be it selfies or these, they all tend to be about 'me'. Despite the fact that some of the photos show a wider aspect, they are still pretty much selfies. They are just a couple of people looking for their 15 min of fame in a 'viral' internet world.

My wife and I did this for 40 years, right up until her death in 2007. Nothing new, but we really had some fun with it.

Click to expand...

Having fun is, in my view, the main thing in all photography (and other art forms)!
I am not sure people who do this are looking for fame and glory, I expect most of them are mostly doing it because it gives them pleasure.

As for 'dumping on the web', I realise this is just grumpy old me mumbling about modern times. Now that I am thinking about it, in years of tutoring at photo-clubs, it was always a problem to convince people that not everything and the kitchen sink needed to be shown. The web makes it a lot easier to show too much, but that is hardly the people's fault. Killing your babies (making a selection) is hard.

I enjoyed the series, too.
By definition, it's definitely not "selfies".
(Huh, I never noticed the connection between "definition" and "definitely" before . . .)
If anything, it's tweaked twin portraiture.

The challenge is getting two interesting and opposing compositions -
which they succeed at in many instances.
There are photos where they both are so small as to be insignificant in the picture.

I don't know that they were seeking internet fame,
any more than all the other millions who post photos of their vacations, children, etc. on the web.
They just tried an idea for something different and it caught on with the crowd.

Is it a bit gimmicky?
Yes, but so is much of photographic art.
All those "greats' from the early 20th century used up all the good "standard" ideas. :cry:

Taking a white tent and a crew into rural Africa
and shooting tribal portraits with an 8x10 against a white backdrop is gimmicky, too.
Didn't hurt that guy's reputation any.

80% of what is popular, including many of the series you see on PetaPixel, is/are gimmicky.
I've seen many that strike me with the same sense of puzzled disdain as the OP.

There was one from Japan where the photog was grabbing couples from Tokyo clubs
and vacuum shrink-wrapping them together before shooting them.
Now that's gimmicky.
I was initially turned off by the series,
but after looking at it more and discussing it with friends,
I decided it was an interesting and possibly insightful commentary
on the packaged "plasticization" and superficiality of Japanese (indeed, most modern) pop culture.

There are many in the photographic "art" community who look down on "flower porn".
Have flowers been photographed enough? Probably.
Have all the good ideas, angles, lighting styles,etc. been done before? Probably.
Are some of the approaches gimmicky? Yes.

But it's subject matter that's available to most "learning" photographers,
it's still fun, still results in some beautiful and interesting images,
and is, I believe, the most popular photo thread on this forum.

True, I'm not really criticizing the couple, more petapixel in general. I've had them on my feeds for a long time but some of what they feel the need to post is kind of irking me. Maybe time to revise.

True, I'm not really criticizing the couple, more petapixel in general. I've had them on my feeds for a long time but some of what they feel the need to post is kind of irking me. Maybe time to revise.